Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCP-21-CR-0002217-2008 COMMONWEALTH : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V.: : EVA ORDO : CP-21-CRIMINAL 2217 – 2008 : : IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO Pa. R.A.P. 1925 Guido, J. March , 2010 The defendant was convicted by a jury of obtaining Welfare Funds by 1 Misrepresentation. She was sentenced to pay the costs of prosecution and to make restitution in the amount of $927. She has filed this appeal in which she contends that 2 there was insufficient evidence to sustain the verdict. Specifically she alleges that the 3 evidence was insufficient to prove that she willfully failed to disclose her employment. In the alternative, she argues that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. Sufficiency of the Evidence. The standard to be applied to a claim of insufficient evidence is “whether the evidence admitted at trial and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, viewed in a light most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict winner, support the jury’s finding of all the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.” Commonwealth v. Montalvo, 956 A.2d 926, 932, 598 Pa. 263, 274 (2008). The critical inquiry is not whether we believe the evidence at trial established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but whether the evidence believed by the fact-finder was sufficient to support the verdict. 1 62 P.S. § 481. 2 See “Concise Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal.” 3 While she raises numerous allegations of error, they all relate back to this specific point. CP-21-CRIMINAL 2217 - 2008 Commonwealth v. Ratsamy, 594 Pa. 176, 934 A.2d 1233 (2007). Furthermore, “the Commonwealth may sustain its burden by means of wholly circumstantial evidence.” Commonwealth v. Montalvo, supra, 956 A.2d at 932. We will recount the relevant facts in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth. In January of 2006 the defendant applied for welfare benefits in the 4 form of food stamps. At the time she applied she was receiving Social Security 56 Disability income. She reported that source of income to the welfare department. At the time of her application she was advised that she must report all changes in her 7 financial status to the county assistance office within ten (10) days. 8 The defendant obtained employment in August of 2006. She did not report it to the county assistance office as instructed. The Department of Welfare discovered her 9 employment by way of a very specialized computer program in July of 2007. Her employment income reduced, but did not eliminate, the amount of food stamps she was 10 entitled to receive. The elements of the crime in the instant case are contained in Section 481 11 of the Welfare Code. Section 481 (a) provides in relevant part as follows: Any person whosubsequent to the , either prior to, or at the time of, or application for assistance,by willfullyfailing to disclose a material . . . factsecures. . .Federal food regarding eligibility . . . , assistance or stamps , commits a crime. 4 Transcript of Proceedings, May 21, 2009, p.10. 5 Transcript of Proceedings, May 21, 2009, p. 18. 6 Transcript of Proceedings, May 21, 2009, p. 18. 7 Transcript of Proceedings, May 21, 2009, p. 19. 8 Transcript of Proceedings, May 21, 2009, p. 34. 9 Transcript of Proceedings, May 21, 2009, p. 32. 10 Transcript of Proceedings, May 21, 2009, pp. 38-39. 11 62 P.S. § 481. 2 CP-21-CRIMINAL 2217 - 2008 12 (emphasis added). The above evidence establishes each of the required elements and is, therefore, sufficient to support the verdict. Weight of the Evidence. The defendant testified as follows. She had been on Social Security Disability 13 since 1996 or 1997. She has attempted to work when she felt she was able. When she obtained the job in August of 2006 she immediately reported it to the Social Security 14 Administration. She chose not to report it to the Welfare Department because, based upon past experience, she thought the report to the Social Security Administration would enable the Department to eventually discover it. Any overpayment would then be 15 deducted from the future benefits due her. It was obvious that her credibility was key to the jury’s decision. During their deliberations they returned with a question which we answered as follows: Question, when considering willfully not reporting, by not reporting and waiting or relying upon the system to catch up with you, is it the same thing or does it carry the same weight? That’s kind of for you guys to discuss and decide. Let me go over the definitions again and try to explain some things under the law that may help you. Willfully means that it was her conscious object or purpose to not disclose her employment so that she would obtain funds to which she is not entitled. If she was aware that her employment would be reported, then she did not In other words, if you believe her testimony that she act willfully. reported this to the Social Security Administration thinking that that was sufficient and thinking that that would then be reported to the State Department of Public Welfare, then she did not act willfully. 12 62 P.S. § 481 (a). 13 Transcript of Proceedings, May 21, 2009, p. 72. 14 Transcript of Proceedings, May 21, 2009, p.77. 15 Transcript of Proceedings, May 21, 2009, pp. 77-78. 3 CP-21-CRIMINAL 2217 - 2008 16 (emphasis added). The jurors chose not to believe her testimony which was their prerogative. A verdict is against the weight of the evidence only when it is “so contrary to the evidence as to shock one’s sense of justice.” Commonwealth v. Cousar, 593 Pa. 204, 222, 928 A.2d 1025, 1036 (2007). The fact that we believed the defendant or may have reached a different result based upon the same evidence is of no consequence. “It is the province of the jury to assess the credibility of witnesses, and a trial judge will not grant a new trial merely because of a conflict in the testimony or because he would have reached a different conclusion on the same facts, if he had been the trier of fact.” Commonwealth v. Vandivner, 599 Pa. 617, 630, 962 A.2d 1170, 1178 (2009). ___________________ ________________________ DATE Edward E. Guido, J. DANIEL J. SODUS, ESQUIRE For the Commonwealth JOHN SHUGARS, ESQUIRE For the Defendant :sld 16 Transcript of Proceedings, May 21, 2009, pp. 113-114. 4